The Commoner. Sept. i9t 1909 13 framed to meet conditions, and wo And now that infants that could get along on 10 per cent when they were born, and 20 per cent when they were chil dren, and 30 per cent when they were young men, have required 40, 50, 60, or 70 per cent when old and entering upon their second childhood. Therefore they had to frame new ar guments. What is tho argument ad vanced now? It ia that the conditions in this country are such that wo can not compete wltn other countries, "and that therefore we must put upon the imported article a tariff making the price so high that we can afford to produce the article in this country. Do they say that they need a protective tariff to help tne sheep Industry get upon its feet? Not at all. Mr. Law rence in his speech said in regard to the impossibility of competing: "And these are the existing con ditions. In Australia merino wool can be and is produced at a less cost than it can be in tho United States, because. (1) pasturage can bo had there for a few cents an acre, and (2) the climate there Is suo.i that substantially no winter feeding is required. The same is true of South America." We are even assured by tho same high authority that "wool growers should at the first practical moment demand gradually annually Increasing duties on all classes of wools just as our increasing flocks can supply in creasing demands." A modest de mand! They offer no hope of reduc tion. In discussing protection our friends are in the habit of claiming ev erything possible. Why, tho gentle man froa Maine (Mrs Dingley) stated to us seriously that the tariff on wool had made more pounds of wool grow on a sheep's back. That is in the Record, that protec tion is responsible for the fact that the sheep today produce more wool than they- used to. I have often thought how perplexed the sheep must Lave been after the passage of the last bill when they got together and con sulted among themselves as to how they wero going to increase the amount of their wool now that the tariff had. made it necessary. But no body, Mr. Chairman, has said to this house that protection would reduce the price of pasturage in this country, nor has anybody claimed that it would so moderate the climate as to do away with the necessity for winter feeding. The theory, Mr. Chairman, upon which this is justified might as well be met here as anywhere; and I want to state, as emphatically as words can state it, that I consider it as false in economy and vicious in policy to attempt to raise at a high price in this country that which we can purchase abroad at a low price in exchange for the products of our toil. It was said by a gentleman who ap peared before the committee I think at the last congressthat wool conld be raised in Australia for 6 cents a pound, and that it could not bo raised in this country for less than 15 cents; and we are told that ft la a wise pol icy to so tax imported wool as to en able our people to raiso wool at IS cents a pound instead of buying it at 6 cents a pound; that we save money and give employment to labor. If that principle is true, then it is wise to raise wool at 15 cents a pound instead of buying at 3 cents, because wo save more in labor. If it is wise: to raise it at 15 cents a pound instead of buy ing it at 3, it is still Wiser to raise it at 15 cents rather than have somebody give it to us. Taat is what it load to; and tho gentlemen who maintain that position are fit companions for the people who are supposed by Bastiat to have peti tioned the French legislature to find soma way of preventing the sun from shining, because it interfered with the business of the candle-makers. If their theory is true, then the most unwind- act of the Creator was to send . that great orb of day every morning to chaso away tho shadows of tho night, flood all the earth with his brightness, and throw out of employ ment those who otherwise might bo making tallow candles to light tho world. It was said by a French writer that Robinson Crusoe was a protectionist; that when he was on tho island all alono ho started to mako a canoo by hollowing out a log with a broken stone. Just about the time he com menced, some boards floated up to the shore, and the thought came to him, "I will take these boards and mako myself a. canoe out of them;" but the protective idea camo to him, and ho said, "No; If I do that I will loso tho labor I put into tho log." So he kicked the boards away from tho shore, and went on hacking at the log with tho broken stone. A little Jater, when he and Friday were together, they spent four hours in tho morning gathering fruiW and four hours in tho afternoon catching game; some one camo up from another island and said, "Oh our isl and wo have, lots of game but no fruit; we will bring you all the game you can eaten in four hours for tho fruit you can gather in two hours." '"Let us do it," sold Friday. "Oh, no," says Crusoe, "If we do that, what will we do with the other two hours of labor?" And that is the theory of our friends. When we buy something, we buy with the results of our toil; and they tell us that we must not so arrange tho laws of this country that wo can buy a great deal, but that we must so ar range them as to mako us work just as long as possible upon every piece of work we undertake. It is the old theory, "the maximum of toil and minimum of product" If this Is tho true principle, then discard your rid ing cultivators, go back to the crooked stick, and let us plow In such a way that all the people of this country ca.n find employment in plowing alone. I, therefore, Mr. Chairman, denounce as fallacious, as unworthy of consid eration, tho only reason that can bo given in support of tho tariff on wool, as a protective tariff and for protective purposes. I desire now, Mr. Chairman, to call tne attention of this committee to an other bill, known as the "binding twine bill." This bill places upon the free list the various kinds of binding twine. The majority and minority of tho committee agree upon some of the facts. Wo agreo that there were con sumed in this country last year about 100.000,000 pounds of binding twine. We agreev that if a tariff of seven tenths of 1 per cent I3 added to tho price of the binding twine it costs the people of this country $700,000 because of that tariff. We agree also that no twine was imported and that no revenue was re ceived by the government from this source. Therefore, if this was a tax upon tho consumer, it was a tax of $700,000 taken out of the people's pocket, not one cent of which reached the treasury. According to the repub lican idea, that is an ideal tariff; it embraces t e maximum of burden with the minimum of revenue. Follow out that principle, arrange your schedules upon that plan, and there will not bo a dollar derived for the support of government from a tariff upon Imports, because you will have no Imports, and yon must find some- other source of revenue. I want to ask the gentlemen who represent the minority if they are in favor of applying this principle to the other schedules; if they are in favor of so adjusting the tariff as to prevent imports and yet enable the protected manufacturer here to take tho money out of the people's pockets? I desire to call attention briefly to what this principle involves. It & sup- posed that a tariff is levied because we need revenue. 1 neara tne gentle man who led the majority in the last congress in the tariff discussion, Mr.. iMcKinley, in a speech which he made at Ottumwa, la., say that wero it not for tho necessity for revenue there would bo no justification for a tariff upon imports. Therefore, tho idea is that you levy thctariff to collect rev enue to support your government Now, how ought it to bo dono? Sup pose you should apply this prlnciplo in collecting the taxes for your coun ties and your towns. It Is estimated that on an average for overy dollar brought into tho treasury by import duties $i go Into tho pockets of tho protected Industries. What docs that mean? It means that 80 per cent of tho taxes paid by tho peoplo for tho support of tho general government be cause of import duties goes into tho pockets of the protected Interests, and only 20 per cent goes into the public treasury, 80 per cent being absorbed in collecting the tax. Try that In your counties. IJow many of your counties would permit the collection, by direct taxa tion, of $100,000 in taxes when only $20,000 wero needed for revenue? How many of you would pay $80,000 to some man to collect tho $20,000 that you wanted to use? And yet, Mr. Chairman, according to the principle involved In this particular item, wo pay not 80, but 100 per cent for col lection! Seven hundred thousand dol lars are collocted from the people in this case if it is a tax, not one cent of which getfl into the troasury. Aro tho gentlemen who represent the minority going to justify that? I am anxious to hear upon what principle that can be defended. But the minority say: "So that, if this assumption wero true, the entire additional cost would only amount to 1 cent per acre, or less than 1 mill per bushel of grain, and yet tho saving of this trifling sum is tho excuse giv en by the majority," etc. We had a report from one of the manufacturers of binding twine that thero aro thirty-five binding twine factories In the United States (there aro possibly a fow more). If that is true, then $700,000 a year means $20, 000 to every one of these binding twine factories. Is that a trifling con sideration? It is trifling to tho farmer to be taxed 1 cent an acre, but it 1b a matter of some Importance (which the minority seems to think of more consideration) that it means $20,000 a year to every binding twine manufac turer in this country. This tax Is a small matter, Mr. Chairman; 1 cent an acre Is trivial; the total sum is not great; but if you concede the right of government to collect from tho farmer 1 cent an acre in order that a bind ing twine factory may make $20 0' a year more, you concede tho right of government to collect from that farmer 1 cent "an acre on each of two hundred additional items for the "pro tection" of other industries, until you have absorbed every cent of his in come from his farm. They told us tho other day that thero aro twenty-five hundred articles upon the tariff list Now, if there are twenty-five hun dred articles upon that list, and you can take one at a time and deal with it upon this principle, imposing a tax of 1 cent an acre upon the farmer for each article, then you can. impose an aggregate tax of $25 an. acre upon the farmer for the benefit of some body else. This binding twine tax is a trifling consideration, but the farm ers of this country who have been oppressed, who have been made to bleed at every pore by your Infamous system, will welcome even a trivial advantage as an earnest of that com plete relief which will come when, it is In our power to give it But, Mr. Chairman, I desire to call attention now to two inconsistent sen tences that lie side by side In the re port of ha minority. I call attention to them mot because inconsistent sen tences are at all rare In arguments in defense of protection. Tou cannot take an hour's speech in defense of a pro- J tcctlvo tariff without finding there contradictions standing faco to face But I call attention to these incon sistencies for tho purposo merely of showing tho confusion into which those arc led who attoinpt to prove , that you can boncflt one man by leg islation without taking something from , somebody cloo. IJero Is tho first sen tence: It Is ovfdont, however, from tho roport of uio bureau of statistics that nothing has been added to tho prico during tho past year on ac count of this duty. And hero is tho next scntenco; It is nlso evident from tho cir cular of tho Belfast Ropo com pany, limited, that to remove tho tariff Is to transfer tho ontlro In dustry to other, countries. Horo aro two estranged products ot ono mental effort yearning for recon ciliation. Nov, if the first statement is true, that no part of this duty was added to tho prico, then how Is tho last part true that tho removal of tho duty Is going to transfer all this In dustry to somo other country? Thero can be no reconciliation of thoso pro positions, bccauRO tho onjy way in vhich you can drlvo out the manu facturing industry from this country is to so reduce tho prico of tho articlo competing from abroad that manufac turers In tnls country cannot afford to mako it; and If you say that the tariff was not added to tho price, you say that tho price was just as low as with out tho tariff; and when you say that the price was just as low with tho tariff as without tho tariff, then you Ray It makes no difference to the man ufacturer In this country whothcr he has a tariff or not. But I want to call attention to the alarm on the part of the minority of t the committee. . ' , v There was a circular sent by some twine manufacturing entablishment to the bureau of statistics and by it nent to us in the committee room; and this circular offering to sell twlno Is made to excuse In this minority report for t retaining a tax of $700,000 on tho farmers of this country. I suppose that If some other man had sent a cir cular If we had two circulars instead of ono tho minority of tho commit tee would have wanted to double tho tariff and to collect $1,400,000 from tho farmers. This shows how readily they becomo alarmed when tho interests of a manufacturer aro at stake, and how slow they aro to become alarmed when tho interests of the great conr sumlng masses of this country arc at stake. Another thing. In this report thoy, say ' If It Is true, as stated In a report of tho majority, that tho senate in 1890 voted to place this articlo on tho free list "If it is. true?" Thoy will not be lieve tho records of congress. If it is true, then they say: it was induced largely by tho assumption that the price was then regulated by a trust .and combina tion formed with a view to force 'up -tho price; but this condition ot affairs which, was then proven never to have existed Is certainly impossible under present competi tion. Thoy tell you that the vote in the senate was taken upon a false assump tionthe assumption of a condition which did not then exist and which is Impossible and yet the minority of this committee hare in their pos session a letter of Edwin H. Fitler fc Co., saying that twenty-nine out of thirty-five of these factories are con trolled by the National Cordage com pany, and that this company controls r,n ner cent of the total output Yet in spite of the fact that they know of the company, its- name ana loauion, ww the number of factories which it con trols, they tell you to thfe report that that vote was taken upon a supposed condition which not only did not exist, i i. -tv '